British Gun Crime up 242 Percent; Post Says 'Laws Seen As Curbing Attacks'

NewsBusters, Washingon Post ^ | 4/24/07 | Ken Shepherd

[UKrepublican]

Well, if big brother is preventing crime, and I’m still a free man to do what I want, then happy days.

[UKrepublican]

Um...no, that paticular shooter, who was insane.

[UKrepublican]

Well actually, it does:

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp

“Total crime peaked in 1995, and has since fallen by 44%.”

And as for violent crime, that has also fallen:

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/BCS_Violence_06.gif

“Violent crime has fallen by around 43% since its peak in 1995 and has remained relatively stable between 2004/05 and 2005/06.”

[UKrepublican]

“I think this is the aspect of current UK firearms law and policy that is most amazing to Americans. The idea that you can’t actively defend yourself in your home is just abhorrent. That, along with the concomitant increasing violent crime stats, especially those for home invasion robberies.”

I think that again, you should look at the facts FRiend.

We may not have guns but:

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page55.asp

“Domestic burglary peaked in the mid 1990’s and fell by 59% between 1995 and 2005/06.”

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Is “castle law” on your side in NZ, at home with your shotgun, as it generally is here in the US?

Definitely not. “Reasonable Force” is what the Crimes Act 1961 stipulates, and “Minimum Force” is really the only safe way to apply that standard.

As I understand our laws, if you meet a perpetrator, you are generally expected to flee. If you meet him with armed force, it better not be in defense of Property. You need to be in fear of your life to use force — and only then “reasonable force”.

You have the right to defend yourself under the Crimes Act 1961, and you even have the right to a Citizen’s Arrest. Both of these are frowned upon.

If you meet the perpetrator with armed force — particularly with a firearm — and you use it, invariably the cops will press charges and leave it to the courts to decide whether you were reasonable in doing so. Fair enough — except that comes at a ruinous cost. Your defense costs will cripple you almost for sure.

I am unaware of any recent case where this hasn’t happened.

> think this is the aspect of current UK firearms law and policy that is most amazing to Americans. The idea that you can’t actively defend yourself in your home is just abhorrent. That, along with the concomitant increasing violent crime stats, especially those for home invasion robberies.

In NZ, home invasion invites an “enhanced” gaol sentence. That said, the scroat will be out in jig time. Maybe long enough to grow a beard and buff up in the prison gym.

We are not supposed to defend ourselves, we should leave it to the experts, who will certainly take good notes and pictures a couple days later when they eventually arrive. Not their fault — our cops are badly stretched. Only Finland has fewer cops-per-capita in the OECD than NZ. And our cops are unarmed.

Something is wrong with this picture...

[NRA1995]

Whenever I talk to UK liberals, they claim there is little or no gun crime there, compared to the USA. What they don’t do in their statistical crowing is look at per capita, and when you do that, the UK has actually been WORSE than the US on gun crimes. Aren’t sawed-off shotguns/rifles outlawed in your country?

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Aren’t sawed-off shotguns/rifles outlawed in your country?

Definitely. Highly illegal. But the Law is absolutely no deterrent to Bad Guys. That’s the beauty of concurrent sentences.

Silencers, interestingly, are perfectly OK.

[FreedomPoster]

OK, they haven’t increased. But we have:

“In 2005/06 around 23% of the population were the victim of some type of crime.”

23%!

That’s a pretty amazing number.

[FreedomPoster]

Just damn. Ouch.

Trends are definitely in the opposite direction, here.

[UKrepublican]

Akmost a 1/4! That is shocking.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> 23%!
>
> That’s a pretty amazing number.

Crikey! You’re not wrong there! That’s one-in-four people, if you take what is there at face value.

I got a wife and two kids. Four all up, in my household. On that basis, one of us last year would have been a victim of Crime.

How does anyone sleep at night, who isn’t single? Got a partner? — well flip a coin heads-or-tails. Maybe this year one or the other of you will be a victim, maybe not.

Do you an your wife have four kids plus one set of in-laws in your family? You’ll be victimized twice each year, according to that stat.

Crikey. That sucks.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Just damn. Ouch.
>
> Trends are definitely in the opposite direction, here.

One of the main reasons why I am a Guardian Angel... somehow we have to reverse the trend.

[El Laton Caliente]

One of the problems with these stats is for a long time the USA defined homicide as all deaths. Gun homicides included accidents and criminal shot by police... England and many other countries only counted murder; sometimes only after final determination by the courts.

The methods of counting varied widely...

[Elsie]

Something is wrong with this picture...

Change it!

Can't you folks VOTE for anything?

[rbookward]

— Yes, it’s skyrocketed from 0.48% of US gun crime levels to 0.59%. . . . . .

Looks like a 20% increase, to be open and honest about it. Would you consider that an ‘insignificant’ rise?

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Can’t you folks VOTE for anything?

(grin!) no, we gave up that right. Our MMP system virtually guarantees that politicians will do whatever they want — irrespective of what we want.

For example, currently, they are going to ram thru a bill to remove Section 59 from the Crimes Act 1961. This is the defense that allows parents to discipline their children physically. (Yes, just like Sweden...)

The MP putting the bill up, Sue Bradford, is a “List” MP. Nobody ever voted for her: she was appointed from the “List” by the Green Party, based upon their %age of the popular vote. She represents nobody, no electorate.

80% of all New Zealanders oppose this bill. The Government wants it to go thru, and go thru it almost assuredly will. They will cut deals with minority parties to get the numbers to make it happen.

There is no provision for binding referendums in NZ, or binding citizen’s initiatives. And no practical way to recall or fire your MP. And virtually no way for any single party to secure a clear majority: all governments are minority governments, cobbled together after the election by “cutting deals”.

No upper house, like a Senate, to keep things honest. And no constitution — just a treaty and a fair few laws.

And no way, really, of getting rid of the MMP system. It was supposed to be re-visited by NZ last election. It wasn’t, and never will be, because MMP is the best thing that ever happened to Politicians anywhere in the world. Asking them to change MMP would be like asking turkeys to vote in favor of an early Christmas.

Never happen.

[Elsie]

Never happen.

Yeah; that's what about half of OUR population thought, 230 years ago.

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

 

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Yeah; that’s what about half of OUR population thought, 230 years ago.

Two key differences, tho’ — King George and his lads had a really long swim before they could get to the Colonists.

And there are more sheep than sheeple in NZ, and more sheeple than sheepdogs.

The sheeple do not understand what Freedom and Liberty is because it’s Just Too Hard. Best to go BAA and get fleeced.

How discouraging. Still, there are a quite a few of us sheepdogs here, hopefully if we breed lots and import a few more bloodlines from the kennels overseas, this trend will shift back to where it once was, when NZ was a force to be reckoned with at one’s dire peril.

*DieHard*

[Elsie]

Sometimes I guess it’s just best to realize this world is NOT our home; we’re justa passin’ thru!

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Sometimes I guess it’s just best to realize this world is NOT our home; we’re justa passin’ thru!

AMEN to that! Me, I’m just here “On Approval” and of “Test Drive”, hoping to go to a better place eventually and in the fullness of time, by His grace rather than by my works.